Adjudicating Authority upholds Section 9 Application, confirming debt and default.

The Adjudicating Authority found the petition signed by Mr. Debabrata Basu on behalf of the Operational Creditor to be valid. The Operational Creditor provided evidence of delivery through letters and tax invoices, discrediting the Corporate Debtor's claim of non-delivery. Proof of service of Section 8 Notice was later submitted and accepted. Despite seeking adjournments for settlement talks, the Corporate Debtor's defenses were deemed baseless. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the admission of the Section 9 Application, dismissing the appeal and confirming debt and default.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Competency of the person signing and verifying the petition.
2. Proof of delivery of goods by the Operational Creditor.
3. Non-service of Section 8 Notice.
4. Settlement possibility between the parties.

Summary:

1. Competency of the Person Signing and Verifying the Petition:

The primary issue analyzed by the Adjudicating Authority was whether the petition had been duly signed and verified by a competent person. The Adjudicating Authority found that Mr. Debabrata Basu, who signed the petition on behalf of the Operational Creditor, was fully competent. The legal precedent cited included the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. and Ors V. P.K. Prathapan & Ors., which established that a company acts through its Directors and authorized agents. It was concluded that the procedural defects should not defeat a just cause, and the petition was validly signed and verified.

2. Proof of Delivery of Goods:

The Appellant contended that the Operational Creditor failed to file any document proving delivery of goods. However, the Adjudicating Authority noted that the Operational Creditor had issued multiple letters requesting payment and had provided tax invoices indicating the delivery details. The Corporate Debtor did not raise any issue regarding non-delivery of goods until the Reply to the Section 9 Application. The Adjudicating Authority found that the defense of non-delivery was dishonest and moonshine, especially since the Corporate Debtor had taken tax input credit for the goods.

3. Non-service of Section 8 Notice:

Although the Operational Creditor initially did not file proof of service of Section 8 Notice, a supplementary affidavit was later submitted, bringing the proof on record. The Appellant did not raise this issue during the appeal, and the Adjudicating Authority accepted the supplementary affidavit as sufficient proof of service.

4. Settlement Possibility Between the Parties:

The Adjudicating Authority noted that the Corporate Debtor had repeatedly sought adjournments on the grounds of a possible settlement. However, no settlement was reached, and the proceedings continued. The Corporate Debtor's conduct, including statements about potential settlements, further undermined its defense regarding non-delivery of goods.

Conclusion:

The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the Section 9 Application was rightly admitted, with debt and default being fully proved. The defenses raised by the Corporate Debtor were found to be groundless. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision to admit the Section 9 Application.

---